Not much I can add to what Yogi wrote. From the FDIC's press release, it sounds like only the insured amounts are being transferred to the successor bank, Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB). The rest of the gazillion dollars remain as liabilities of SVB, for which the depositors get receivership certificates (effectively, priority among bankruptcy creditors).
https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23016.html
Maybe there will be investors in DINB. But no one will buy SVB's long term treasuries at par - which is what Yogi explained.
We can turn your question around: would the uninsured depositors be willing to lock up their money for 10 years (at a low interest rate) in order to be made whole a decade from now? Unless the depositors were forced to, they would not. They'd lose both the time value of their money and the use of the money for years. They'd rather take pennies on the dollar.

@Old_Joe, imagine that YOU are deep pocket investor called for the rescue. Say, the SVB/FDIC want to unload $10 billion in 2% coupon 10-yr T-Notes. You will own this lousy-rate portfolio that will return you 2% guaranteed in 10 years, not before. So, how much cash you will provide to SVB/FDIC on Monday?
Even if the deep pocket was Uncle Sam, you would be asking it to settle a 10-yr obligation right away and it cannot be at 100%.
Moreover, there is a lack of willing deep pockets. Warren Buffett? Elon Musk? (on Twitter, somebody suggested this and Elon tweeted that he could be interested. He shouldn't joke about things like this - he should have learned from his Twitter experience.)
In situations like this, a deep pocket will demand equity and/or warrants in any successor entity, in addition to the lousy-rate T-Note portfolio, to cover 100% now.

@Hank. Have you ever tried a custom benchmark from however many component ETF’s you choose and assemble to your desired asset allocation. Then put in Portfolio Visualizer. I don’t think it will work for daily but by months it’s fine. Compare with your balance from any start date. Like when you retired to now.

I appreciate your response Larry. I’m not really in search of some performance benchmark. Just wondered how you would go about it. As one who has always eschewed holding cash what I really concern myself with is the inherent short term volatility of the riskier things I invest in. I figure if I’ve invested in what seem to me sound investments with risk offsetting characteristics, than the performance part will take care of itself. (You may assume that like most I keep yearly performance records - now dating back some 25 years.)
Those holdings contain as of now:
6 individual stocks
1 traditional 60/40 balanced fund
1 traditional 40/60 conservative allocation fund
1 non-U.S. equity index fund
1 gold miners fund
1 commodities basket (metals) fund
1 capital allocation CEF using derivatives / leverage
1 infrastructure fund
1 long-short fund
1 risk premia fund
1 global real estate fund
1 EM stock fund
1 GNMA fund
1 global bond fund
1 intermediate HY fund
1 market neutral convertible bond fund
1 inverse S&P 500 fund
- negligible % in money market funds
Friday the entire collection ended down 0.22%. I made 3 purchases throughout the day as a stock was falling, so that number is a bit exaggerated to the high end. That’s reasonable daily volatility. Of course there are occasional off-days when the portfolio falls more than 0.50%. It’s the roughly 8-10% commitment to precious metals / mining that affects volatility the most. Also, individual stocks affect volatility, especially two which represent close to 5% of portfolio each..
If you are beyond 70, and if you hold close to 0 cash reserve, then daily / monthly / year-to year volatility may concern you a great deal. The “close your eyes and invest for the long-run” approach ceases to work at some point.
I know you’ve been looking at a simplified approach. Makes sense. I’d likely recommend that to many our age. Unfortunately, it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I’ve always enjoyed investing. Am reasonably informed. Lived through some horrendous inflation during the 70s & 80s period and came to distrust holding much cash. Other than for ballast, I’ve not liked bonds that much. Albeit - under Paul Volker you could pull 15% or better in money market funds. But it wasn’t always that way. There were stretches where cash didn’t keep up with rising prices. And, as we learned in 2008, some of those money market funds were riskier than we thought.
Re the 3 funds I track daily for volatility: They are all conservative allocation type funds, selected primarily for their diverse investment approaches:
ABRZX from Invesco spreads risk equally among equities, bonds and commodities. It does so largely through the derivatives markets. A stated goal of the fund is “reduced volatility”.
PRSIX is an actively managed 40/60 allocation fund run by T. Rowe Price, one of the best managers in the business - notwithstanding this fund’s recent lackluster performance. Until the bond wipe-out of 2022, it was considered one of the best conservative allocation funds in its class.
AOK is a 30/70 allocation ETF from Blackrock with an appealing 0.15% management fee. It appears to rely partially or wholly on various market index funds. I like that it includes some domestic mid-caps, some foreign equities and even a small exposure to EM stocks. As far as I can tell it’s not actively managed, so the return - for better or worse - represents how the varied assortment of global / domestic indexes perform.
As I’ve stated, I do not own any of the 3 tracking funds above. Just enjoy watching their daily behavior. I did find it unusual - and a bit funny - that they managed to break-even on one of the most volatile trading days I can remember - and with a bank failure thrown in for good measure.

March 10, '23
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-03-11/wall-street-week-full-show-03-10-2023
Katterer at Causeway is so smart and engaging. But I just don't need small-cap volatility anymore. The other guest from Voya says you would do well with EM if you can hang on for 3-4 years into the future. Not interested, after EM has burned me so often.

Following is an excerpt from a current article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a purported* SF newspaper:

A new bank, the National Bank of Santa Clara, has been created by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to hold the deposits and assets of Silicon Valley Bank, and it will begin operating by Monday. But only accounts that fall below $250,000 are insured by FDIC; any winery with funds above that will have to wait an undetermined amount of time to find out if the additional amount will be paid back, partially or in full.

Since two of the few subjects that the SF Chronicle seems equipped to cover these days are food and wine, this article naturally focused on problems that the wine industry may face due to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. The potential problems for safety of deposits in excess of the FDIC 250k coverage limit will apply, of course, to all deposits of that type.
* Having been a reader of San Francisco newspapers for some 75 years, I can accurately report that the current San Francisco Chronicle is barely a faint shadow of what a real newspaper should be, and in fact, of what the Chronicle once was. The Hearst Corporation is evidently targeting readers between 12 and 20 years of age.

@lewisbraham. Ya, that was the problem with the bailouts last time. They should have protected and back stopped the depositors and let the banks etc go under. The one's who didn't leverage themselves to kingdom come would have survived and taken over going forward
Of course, the pension funds would have got clobbered and that would have been another issue
Question. What responsibility did the folks who took out loans they couldn't afford bear. The Ninja loans etc. Who approved those? What was the due diligence etc. I believe the government was almost forced to overlook all that. Similar to the ppp loans in the past two years. Oy vey what fraud!!
Best
Baseball fan

"Although SVB was 50 years old? its hard to know in these situations."
@Devo- Yes, exactly my point. Lehman and Home Savings were big outfits too.

True story. I was online earlier this week looking at JM bullion at bars of gold. Thinking about it, no action yet

RE JM Bullion Bars - They are pretty. Many, many years ago I owned a bunch. Silver’s very streaky. It was actually a silver miner I mentioned this morning that bounced 6% out of the gate. But p/ms are a wild ride. It is quite interesting that the bank fiasco seems to have sparked them.
Speculators are banking on (perhaps a poor choice of words) the grinches at the Fed Reserve backing off on the tightening.
EDIT - Sorry at Baseball_Fan / I mistook the JM bars you mentioned to be silver at first. That’s what I owned years ago. Gold will cost you a pretty penny. :)

Do business with solid institutions. We don't have to try out anyone's latest innovation or gimmick in matters of money. Although SVB was 50 years old? its hard to know in these situations. but explains why JPM is up 2.5% today. when in trouble, everyone goes to papa.

I was taught in a college communications class more than a half century ago: ”A percept is a product.” / While we can mitigate the actual significance of the failure of SVB and put it into proper perspective, the perception out there among the investing public (and perhaps some in the investment community) may be substantial.
PS - Every teacher’s wish is that their students still remember what they were taught 50 years later. :)

Typical FDIC intervention - close the bank on Friday, reopen on Monday under new ownership.
Many confuse similar rescue for brokers (by SIPC) and insurance & annuity companies (by state regulators) - but those may take months or years to workout.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/10/silicon-valley-bank-is-shut-down-by-regulators-fdic-to-protect-insured-deposits.html
https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23016.html

@johnN @junkster
What little of CNBC I watched yesterday was when Mayo was on with Scott Wapner, and they talked about financials (I didn’t know the huge financial sell-off stemmed from $SIVB)….mentioning that the largest, multinational banks have been stress-tested annually for several years, and are probably in good shape (C, BAC, WFC, JPM, etc). The banks just under that size, whether super regional or regional, have not been stress-tested. Obviously the worry is contagion.
I have been trading ZION; it’s a conservative UT (redundant? Ha) bank that I have traded in and out of for last 18 months or so. Good dividend growth. But it was down 10-11% yesterday, so I bought more.
Good luck to us….I’m in junkster’s camp that we’ve been in a rally since October, and that was the bear bottom….but man, all these walls of worry keep being built! Ha

This suggestion by YBB is very wise indeed. Keep TIPS maturities <= 5 years. I frankly like the idea. So why go longer maturities? No two portfolios are the same. There are a 1000 ways to make potatoes in India. We must all solve for what works for us.
Incidentally I have been listening to a lot of Myron Scholes lately on this podcast:
https://www.janushenderson.com/en-us/advisor/bio/myron-scholes-phd/
This podcast is available online for free and I listen to it on my phone while walking. He speaks fast and there are many complex topics but he is dealing right in the heart of all the topics related to portfolio construction. Listening to it is humbling because there is just so much to it even for the sophisticated investors.
None of this is supposed to be easy. But I do agree that YBB's suggestion is a step in the direction to make it easier.

"To Sell or Not To Sell?" by Charles Bolin in the March 2023 MFO issue. Chart 2 appears to be using years ending 01/31/23 or perhaps 12/31/22 (the five funds with dashes for later years are all aged just past the years of their last entry). Chart not reproducible now, as MFOP now includes February data (but such a chart looks worse now).

Not trying to change the topic. Treasury bill and notes are also competitive to broker CDs. They are good vehicles to build ladders.
As of 3/8/23, 6 months yield 5.34%,12 months yield 5.25% and 2 years yield 5.05%.
https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202303
Treasuries are highly liquid that can be sold in open market before reaching maturity.

Pretty sloppy for a guy who is always not only on top of everything, but actually well ahead of everything... he didn't bother to check his link response, which seems pretty odd considering that he has such superior financial systems. Makes you wonder a bit.

I have been posting for years, and rarely my links don't work. Because the link didn't work I am sloppy?...mmm...it tells me a lot about you.
BTW, how about discussing the topic?

Used to own Templeton Emerging Markets Small Cap Fund, but I liquidated my position a couple of years ago.

@msf I'm sorry but I don't see this as a Santos level of deception. To be honest, I don't think you do either, but for some reason you are standing by that comparison, perhaps to win an argument. If anything, Samra's record today is long enough to stand on its own and exceeds that of the fund he worked for previously certainly in recent years. (I won't use the term "previous charge" in case it's misconstrued.) So, unlike with Santos, what is the benefit to him or Artisan of any grand deception?

Analysts matter greatly, and I wish fund sponsors would provide information about them as well as their management teams. My comment was intended to be narrowly focused on exactly what Samra did at Oakmark. Had he been a portfolio manager there, then Oakmark would have provided information about him.
I remain troubled by the fact that Artisan presents Samra as a former portfolio manager at Oakmark. Here's another page from Artisan, this one about their International Value Team. Here too Artisan says that Samra was a portfolio manager at Harris Associates (Oakmark).
https://www.artisanpartners.com/individual-investors/investments/international-value-team.html
Artisan is a little more careful elsewhere on the page, though. It writes: "Portfolio management averages more than 21 years of investment experience." While that may lead the reader to infer that the team averages 21+ years of portfolio management experience, all that it is claiming is that the team on average has been involved in professional investing for 21+ years.
Such "embellishment" is what Santos said he was doing with his CV. Artisan is embellishing; Santos was (and is) lying.

72T uniform withdrawals allow PENALTY-FREE (but TAXABLE) withdrawals from retirement accounts (IRA, 401k, 403b) before the age of 59.5. However, the rules are COMPLEX to prevent excessive withdrawals & are very RIGID – once started, there couldn’t be any changes & the program must continue for 5 years or to age 59.5, whichever the later (even if there is risk of running out of money, triggering premature termination penalties). A less noted provision of the new SECURE 2.0 allows some flexibility for 72T in making partial transfers and rollovers after 12/31/23.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/249/uniform-withdrawals-retirement-accounts-72t?page=1&scrollTo=964